Actually, among Division I schools in Texas, SMU and Baylor both have better graduation rates among the three sports than either Tech or TCU and I would imagine Rice does as well though it isn't included in the list due to not being in the Big 12 or local.
You can use statistics to prove just about anything you want to, however, they can also be very misleading. That schools like Texas and A&M don't have as high a graduation rate among it's athletes is more a reflection of the fact that they typically get the best athletes in the state in most sports, and thus, have a greater number of athletes who leave school early to go pro, especially basketball, for large sums of money that they would never make if they got hurt their Senior year or at most jobs they may have gotten outside of pro sports with a college degree in most cases. The statistics shown here also doesn't take into account student athletes who transfer to another school because they are having to play behind someone else the coaches have deemed to be better than they are, and fear they will never get on the field to show what they can do if they stay, and who may very well graduate at the institution they transfer to. The only thing this chart reflects is the percentage of students who entered that school as a freshman and completed his or her degree at the same institution. A school like Texas,for example, had two basketball players leave early this year to enter the NBA draft and signed multimillion dollar contracts and one who transferred to another college because he was unhappy with his playing time. A&M had the Wright kid that left early and was drafted in the first round by New Jersy two yars ago and had a quarterback (Long),who found himself playing behind Reggie McNeal despite having thrown for a record seven touchdown passes in one game the prior year. He transferred to Sam Houston where he set records there and was drafted by a team in the National Football League. If I remember correctly, he transferred back to A&M after the season ended and finished his degree, but didn't count toward their graduation rate because he had transferred to another school.
Oh give me a break! You are not going to tell me that 60% of the A&M football team and 40% of the Texas football team left to go pro. Really. Just admit the truth, 1/2 the players either drop out or don't graduate. Period. I love the rationale which implies that A&M's 43% graduation rate is because of their players going pro. LOL. They haven't even won the conference during those years much less been a regular bowl contender. give me a break.
I never said that some don't drop out due to not being able to hack it academically or due to bad behavior that gets them dismissed from the team usually leading to them going elsewhere, whether to another school willing to take a chance on them or back on the streets, but that is true of all schools whether among the athletes or the general student population, but if you take those that do leave early to go pro, or are drafted their Senior year of eligibility prior to having enough credits to finish their degree that spring, or who transfer to another school for a better opportunity to play out of the equation, then, of all the schools who are listed, the figures are much closer than this chart shows. As for A&M, they did win the conference in '98 and regardless of how they have done as a team record wise since then, in '05, they had far more football players playing in the NFL (32)than any other school in the state except Texas with 33, and in the 2003 draft, six players from A&M were drafted (two in 1st round, two in 2nd round, one in the third, and one in the 6th)despite the team having a 6 win 6 loss record. That's the year Slocum lost his job. The truth is that many of those drafted, whether early or during their Senior year of eligibilty, can't or don't finish their degrees within the time frame that this study requires in order to be counted as a graduate. A number of players do eventually finish after going pro, but it is usually a few years later and the schools don't get credit for those graduates in this study. If my memory served me correctly, to be included as a graduate in this study, you have to have done so within 6 years of entering the school as a freshman and that is hard for some of them to do with the time requirements of their jobs as NFL or NBA players. Just look at the graduation rate among women at all these schools. They beat the men handily in almost all schools, but they don't have nearly the opportunity to go pro and make lots of money like the guys do and are not as motivated to transfer because of that, so they tend to stay in school and get their degrees in much higher percentages.
OK, well we all know Aggies cannot be objective about themselves so let's try UT and OU. Over 50% of their football players don't graduate. Under our "Man of Many Words" theorist, at least 5-6 get drafted early every year (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, actually most of those drafted are seniors anyway). There are at least 50+ players on the team. Thus, ten percent leave early for the pros. I guess the other 40% that don't graduate are just transfering around or something. Come on, these schools recruit regardless of the criminal record, high school behavior record and lack of academic ability. I will admit to you that A&M graduates 10% more than OU and 20% more than UT. Beyond that, you need to admit the obvious.
I think you're the one missing the obvious. I'm speaking from 25 years experience of coaching and being familiar with the college game and recruiting. Typically, most schools recruit around 20 to 25 players, each year (the limit is 25)because they are limited to 90 scholarships for the entire team. That means they can't take 25 every year unless they have that many spots open due to scholarship players (the only ones accounted for in the study)completing their eligibilty, leaving early to go pro, to transfer, or to just drop out or be kicked out of school. Assuming that 25 high school football players were recruited by a school in 1999, last class that this study looked at, if six of those players such as the A&M class of'03, were able to be drafted, whether early or not, and none of them had enough credits to graduate at the end of their athletic eligibility, then those student athletes would count against the graduation rate for '99 recruits if they can't find time to do so within one or two years of going pro. With the schedule that pros have these days, it is next to impossible for them to take classes during the fall or spring semesters during the regular season and isn't easy even during the summer months when they still have team commitments, often in cities far removed from where they attended college. Six players alone would account for 24% of a recruiting class of 25. Add to that another two or three from each class who transfer elsewhere at some point to get a chance to play, which is very common in the top programs in the country who have more good players than they can put on the field,and your looking at 32%. For a school with a 60% graduation rate, that means they actually only lost about 8% due to athletes dropping out with nothing to look forward to or being kicked out.Bottom line, and the point I'm making is, the study is flawed in the way it presents the information, because it makes it appear that a school (regardless of which school) failed to meet the needs of 40% of it's athletes or in improving their lives which isn't the case. A guy that is making $500,000 or more as a pro is certainly better off financially than most of us, even if he never gets a degree, and many of them actually do eventually graduate a few years down the road. I seem to remember Shaquille O'Neal a couple of years ago finally getting his degree several years after he left LSU for the pros and there are many others who do the same at some point after they turn pro when they realize a degree will be useful after they retire. Schools such as Rice and, more recently, SMU since they restarted their program after the death penalty, will always have higher graduation rates, because they have very few kids good enough to go pro and their recruits must meet higher entrance requirements than most state supported colleges. That means they can recruit smart kids who are more likely to graduate, but they can't recruit outstanding athletes who happen to not be outstanding students academically which is why they have losing seasons virtually every year.
.jpg)
Source.
11 comments:
At UNT, our motto is, "We may not have much of a program, but at least we're not smart."
Looks like Tech and TCU head the Texas schools. Go Red Raiders and Frogs.
Looks like the ladies are smarter.
Actually, among Division I schools in Texas, SMU and Baylor both have better graduation rates among the three sports than either Tech or TCU and I would imagine Rice does as well though it isn't included in the list due to not being in the Big 12 or local.
You can use statistics to prove just about anything you want to, however, they can also be very misleading. That schools like Texas and A&M don't have as high a graduation rate among it's athletes is more a reflection of the fact that they typically get the best athletes in the state in most sports, and thus, have a greater number of athletes who leave school early to go pro, especially basketball, for large sums of money that they would never make if they got hurt their Senior year or at most jobs they may have gotten outside of pro sports with a college degree in most cases. The statistics shown here also doesn't take into account student athletes who transfer to another school because they are having to play behind someone else the coaches have deemed to be better than they are, and fear they will never get on the field to show what they can do if they stay, and who may very well graduate at the institution they transfer to. The only thing this chart reflects is the percentage of students who entered that school as a freshman and completed his or her degree at the same institution. A school like Texas,for example, had two basketball players leave early this year to enter the NBA draft and signed multimillion dollar contracts and one who transferred to another college because he was unhappy with his playing time. A&M had the Wright kid that left early and was drafted in the first round by New Jersy two yars ago and had a quarterback (Long),who found himself playing behind Reggie McNeal despite having thrown for a record seven touchdown passes in one game the prior year. He transferred to Sam Houston where he set records there and was drafted by a team in the National Football League. If I remember correctly, he transferred back to A&M after the season ended and finished his degree, but didn't count toward their graduation rate because he had transferred to another school.
Above if officially the longest entry I have ever seen!
Oh give me a break! You are not going to tell me that 60% of the A&M football team and 40% of the Texas football team left to go pro. Really. Just admit the truth, 1/2 the players either drop out or don't graduate. Period. I love the rationale which implies that A&M's 43% graduation rate is because of their players going pro. LOL. They haven't even won the conference during those years much less been a regular bowl contender. give me a break.
I never said that some don't drop out due to not being able to hack it academically or due to bad behavior that gets them dismissed from the team usually leading to them going elsewhere, whether to another school willing to take a chance on them or back on the streets, but that is true of all schools whether among the athletes or the general student population, but if you take those that do leave early to go pro, or are drafted their Senior year of eligibility prior to having enough credits to finish their degree that spring, or who transfer to another school for a better opportunity to play out of the equation, then, of all the schools who are listed, the figures are much closer than this chart shows. As for A&M, they did win the conference in '98 and regardless of how they have done as a team record wise since then, in '05, they had far more football players playing in the NFL (32)than any other school in the state except Texas with 33, and in the 2003 draft, six players from A&M were drafted (two in 1st round, two in 2nd round, one in the third, and one in the 6th)despite the team having a 6 win 6 loss record. That's the year Slocum lost his job. The truth is that many of those drafted, whether early or during their Senior year of eligibilty, can't or don't finish their degrees within the time frame that this study requires in order to be counted as a graduate. A number of players do eventually finish after going pro, but it is usually a few years later and the schools don't get credit for those graduates in this study. If my memory served me correctly, to be included as a graduate in this study, you have to have done so within 6 years of entering the school as a freshman and that is hard for some of them to do with the time requirements of their jobs as NFL or NBA players. Just look at the graduation rate among women at all these schools. They beat the men handily in almost all schools, but they don't have nearly the opportunity to go pro and make lots of money like the guys do and are not as motivated to transfer because of that, so they tend to stay in school and get their degrees in much higher percentages.
OK, well we all know Aggies cannot be objective about themselves so let's try UT and OU. Over 50% of their football players don't graduate. Under our "Man of Many Words" theorist, at least 5-6 get drafted early every year (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, actually most of those drafted are seniors anyway). There are at least 50+ players on the team. Thus, ten percent leave early for the pros. I guess the other 40% that don't graduate are just transfering around or something. Come on, these schools recruit regardless of the criminal record, high school behavior record and lack of academic ability. I will admit to you that A&M graduates 10% more than OU and 20% more than UT. Beyond that, you need to admit the obvious.
I think you're the one missing the obvious. I'm speaking from 25 years experience of coaching and being familiar with the college game and recruiting. Typically, most schools recruit around 20 to 25 players, each year (the limit is 25)because they are limited to 90 scholarships for the entire team. That means they can't take 25 every year unless they have that many spots open due to scholarship players (the only ones accounted for in the study)completing their eligibilty, leaving early to go pro, to transfer, or to just drop out or be kicked out of school. Assuming that 25 high school football players were recruited by a school in 1999, last class that this study looked at, if six of those players such as the A&M class of'03, were able to be drafted, whether early or not, and none of them had enough credits to graduate at the end of their athletic eligibility, then those student athletes would count against the graduation rate for '99 recruits if they can't find time to do so within one or two years of going pro. With the schedule that pros have these days, it is next to impossible for them to take classes during the fall or spring semesters during the regular season and isn't easy even during the summer months when they still have team commitments, often in cities far removed from where they attended college.
Six players alone would account for 24% of a recruiting class of 25. Add to that another two or three from each class who transfer elsewhere at some point to get a chance to play, which is very common in the top programs in the country who have more good players than they can put on the field,and your looking at 32%. For a school with a 60% graduation rate, that means they actually only lost about 8% due to athletes dropping out with nothing to look forward to or being kicked out.Bottom line, and the point I'm making is, the study is flawed in the way it presents the information, because it makes it appear that a school (regardless of which school) failed to meet the needs of 40% of it's athletes or in improving their lives which isn't the case. A guy that is making $500,000 or more as a pro is certainly better off financially than most of us, even if he never gets a degree, and many of them actually do eventually graduate a few years down the road. I seem to remember Shaquille O'Neal a couple of years ago finally getting his degree several years after he left LSU for the pros and there are many others who do the same at some point after they turn pro when they realize a degree will be useful after they retire. Schools such as Rice and, more recently,
SMU since they restarted their program after the death penalty, will always have higher graduation rates, because they have very few kids good enough to go pro and their recruits must meet higher entrance requirements than most state supported colleges. That means they can recruit smart kids who are more likely to graduate, but they can't recruit outstanding athletes who happen to not be outstanding students academically which is why they have losing seasons virtually every year.
That anon should be banned for the books they've written. There's a concept in Algebra called 'simplify'. You know, Reader's Digest version.
Post a Comment